5 ms·

Everybody who's chosen to use an iPhone has done so freely and without being coerced. Alternatives exist, including one that's wildly more popular than the iPho

Everybody who's chosen to use an iPhone has done so freely and without being coerced. Alternatives exist, including one that's wildly more popular than the iPhone itself.

pdkl95 7y ago
Yes, we did. So what? Someone that buys an iPhone can use their property as they desire. Apple is selling a general purpose computer (even if they wish they were selling an appliance with a specific limited set of features). They can (and should) make recommendations about how to use their product safely, but they don't have any right to forbid people from using what is now the customer's property for an "unapproved" purpode. A manufacturer looses control of their product after the first sale[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
- scarface74 7y ago
  How is everything with a processor not a general purpose computer? By definition Apple isn’t selling a device that you can do with as you please like a general purpose computer. If you don’t like Apple’s policies you are free to buy an Android device. The free market is great isn’t it? It’s surprising what intelligent people can do without giving the government more power.
  - sjwright 7y ago
    I would go further and reject the phrase “general purpose computer” as overly vague to the point of being meaningless. Is a bicycle a general purpose vehicle? Who decides what qualifies as a general purpose?
    - pdkl95 7y ago
      > Who decides what qualifies as a general purpose Alan Turing and Alanzo Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness However, my use of the term is an explicit (my previous [2]) reference to these important talks by Cory Doctorow about the War on General Purpose Computing, which I strongly recommend watching/reading: https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html https://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html
      - ben509 7y ago
        That means a (properly) relational DBMS can be completely locked down because the relational model is not Turing complete.
        ben509 7y ago
        The goal here is to find a criteria under which you can require that manufacturers open up general purpose systems. And the proposal is that a system that is Turing complete is also general purpose. The relational model is hugely expressive, and yet it is not Turing complete. So you have something that is plainly general purpose, but would be exempt from such a law. That you can modify the relational model to make it Turing complete is irrelevant, it's already hugely expressive. And that you'd typically run it on a machine that is Turing complete doesn't save you. If a manufacturer wanted to bypass that restriction, they'd design a system that is entirely dedicated to it.
        pdkl95 7y ago
        While the DBMS itself isn't Turing complete, you probably need a Turing equivalent machine to implement the DBMS. Turing machines can implement less complex types of automation, but the underlying machine is still Turing complete. I wonder how difficult it would be to make a purely electromechanical decision table. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_table )
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        ben509 7y ago
        It wouldn't be turing complete if you simply load the application into ROM and restrict the CPU from executing pages in RAM. You can implement the entire relational model with about 8 operators and graph transformations, mostly distribution. You can add math functions as virtual tables, e.g. join against the times table to do multiplciation. I wrote a paper on how this works, and while it was about ten years ago, I'm pretty sure you could do the algebraic transformations needed with just a stack, so I think you could do it with a finite state automata. But see my response to myself.
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    > How is everything with a processor not a general purpose computer? They are general purpose computers; this does apply to most products with a processor. However, there are practical differences in what you can implement on an iPhone compared to a tiny embedded CPU with a few kB or MB of RAM. > Apple isn’t selling a device that you can do with as you please Transferring ownership of property is the very definition of "selling" something. If Apple want to restrict what people do with their device, they shouldn't be selling it. They can rent/license it, and a very different set of laws would apply. > If you don’t like Apple’s policies you are free to buy an Android device. I am also free to use the goods I bought in violation of those policies. That's what it means to own something. > giving the government more power. Who is giving the government which new powers? I'm talking about basic property rights.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      They are general purpose computers; this does apply to most products with a processor. However, there are practical differences in what you can implement on an iPhone compared to a tiny embedded CPU with a few kB or MB of RAM. So by that standard, an Apple //e with 128KB of RAM and 1Mhz processor wasn’t a general purpose computer? Transferring ownership of property is the very definition of "selling" something. If Apple want to restrict what people do with their device, they shouldn't be selling it. They can rent/license it, and a very different set of laws would apply So does the same rule apply to game consoles? My TV with an embedded Roku?
    - zimpenfish 7y ago
      > Transferring ownership of property Whilst you might buy the phone, I believe you effectively "rent/license" iOS, no? Which means Apple are restricting not what you do with "your device" but "their OS". No ownership of iOS has been transferred. (I know the two are intimately tangled and this is nitpicking but we're well into the legal nitpicking weeds here.)

Everybody who's chosen to use an iPhone has done so freely and without being coerced. Alternatives exist, including one that's wildly more popular than the iPhone itself.

pdkl95 7y ago

Yes, we did. So what? Someone that buys an iPhone can use their property as they desire. Apple is selling a general purpose computer (even if they wish they were selling an appliance with a specific limited set of features). They can (and should) make recommendations about how to use their product safely, but they don't have any right to forbid people from using what is now the customer's property for an "unapproved" purpode. A manufacturer looses control of their product after the first sale[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

scarface74 7y ago
How is everything with a processor not a general purpose computer? By definition Apple isn’t selling a device that you can do with as you please like a general purpose computer. If you don’t like Apple’s policies you are free to buy an Android device. The free market is great isn’t it? It’s surprising what intelligent people can do without giving the government more power.
- sjwright 7y ago
  I would go further and reject the phrase “general purpose computer” as overly vague to the point of being meaningless. Is a bicycle a general purpose vehicle? Who decides what qualifies as a general purpose?
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    > Who decides what qualifies as a general purpose Alan Turing and Alanzo Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness However, my use of the term is an explicit (my previous [2]) reference to these important talks by Cory Doctorow about the War on General Purpose Computing, which I strongly recommend watching/reading: https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html https://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html
    - ben509 7y ago
      That means a (properly) relational DBMS can be completely locked down because the relational model is not Turing complete.
      - ben509 7y ago
        The goal here is to find a criteria under which you can require that manufacturers open up general purpose systems. And the proposal is that a system that is Turing complete is also general purpose. The relational model is hugely expressive, and yet it is not Turing complete. So you have something that is plainly general purpose, but would be exempt from such a law. That you can modify the relational model to make it Turing complete is irrelevant, it's already hugely expressive. And that you'd typically run it on a machine that is Turing complete doesn't save you. If a manufacturer wanted to bypass that restriction, they'd design a system that is entirely dedicated to it.
      - pdkl95 7y ago
        While the DBMS itself isn't Turing complete, you probably need a Turing equivalent machine to implement the DBMS. Turing machines can implement less complex types of automation, but the underlying machine is still Turing complete. I wonder how difficult it would be to make a purely electromechanical decision table. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_table )
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        ben509 7y ago
        It wouldn't be turing complete if you simply load the application into ROM and restrict the CPU from executing pages in RAM. You can implement the entire relational model with about 8 operators and graph transformations, mostly distribution. You can add math functions as virtual tables, e.g. join against the times table to do multiplciation. I wrote a paper on how this works, and while it was about ten years ago, I'm pretty sure you could do the algebraic transformations needed with just a stack, so I think you could do it with a finite state automata. But see my response to myself.
- pdkl95 7y ago
  > How is everything with a processor not a general purpose computer? They are general purpose computers; this does apply to most products with a processor. However, there are practical differences in what you can implement on an iPhone compared to a tiny embedded CPU with a few kB or MB of RAM. > Apple isn’t selling a device that you can do with as you please Transferring ownership of property is the very definition of "selling" something. If Apple want to restrict what people do with their device, they shouldn't be selling it. They can rent/license it, and a very different set of laws would apply. > If you don’t like Apple’s policies you are free to buy an Android device. I am also free to use the goods I bought in violation of those policies. That's what it means to own something. > giving the government more power. Who is giving the government which new powers? I'm talking about basic property rights.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    They are general purpose computers; this does apply to most products with a processor. However, there are practical differences in what you can implement on an iPhone compared to a tiny embedded CPU with a few kB or MB of RAM. So by that standard, an Apple //e with 128KB of RAM and 1Mhz processor wasn’t a general purpose computer? Transferring ownership of property is the very definition of "selling" something. If Apple want to restrict what people do with their device, they shouldn't be selling it. They can rent/license it, and a very different set of laws would apply So does the same rule apply to game consoles? My TV with an embedded Roku?
  - zimpenfish 7y ago
    > Transferring ownership of property Whilst you might buy the phone, I believe you effectively "rent/license" iOS, no? Which means Apple are restricting not what you do with "your device" but "their OS". No ownership of iOS has been transferred. (I know the two are intimately tangled and this is nitpicking but we're well into the legal nitpicking weeds here.)